So fill us in with what to do re poss irregularities. Its evident that the manipulation occurs accross AIM . eg RKH for example. Folks are having a field day with small movements as is the same with EDL. I dont think these are conspiracy theories at all I personally think its the way money is made quietly whilst there is no news. Whats to do about it? I havnt a clue
Firstly well done for your continued efforts to get to the bottom of this. There are a couple of points that I wish to make.
1. I agree with you and have bee frustrated in my attempts on iii to rally the troops whatsoever. people appear to be rabbits in the headlights in regard to this manipulation which of course plays right into the hands of whoever is doing this - legal or otherwise. Would it not be more powerful to have a group of people approach the FCA? (I know you're already in talks with them) - surely two (or more) is always better than one?
2. Secondly, Nothing personal of course but I take issue with you calling my posts "incorrect" - if you reread my posts they are full of caveat phrases such as "it seems", "it would appear" etc etc, The reason I use these phrases is to communicate that I am not professing to know what is going on - that is the whole point - I am trying to encourage a discussion as to what indeed is going on - no-one seems to know. Including you.
Anyway onwards and upwards I am now registered here so you don't have to remark on my posts on another board. I totally believe that this is being manipulated however I doubt that the reporting mechanisms are there for us to ever find evidence of wrongdoing. It is all done under the table in the city - always has been.
Good luck to you and lets try to approach this together
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't understand these holding rns's . There seems to be more of these on edl than any other share I know , and with major investment banks . These shares are getting bounced all over the place for these institutions to make a nice 20% every few months & on the number of shares they own or borrow is a nice little earner . IMO
Going back through the holdings announcements, in some of their RNSs the "Situation previous to the triggering transaction" shows the total of shares they have INCLUDING the equity swaps and in others it doesn't which makes it look like their shareholding is changing more drastically than it really is.
No that’s not right. It doesn’t help that UBS have just mucked their RNS up. You’d think with all the RNS these companies release on a daily basis that they’d be able to get something so straightforward right every time, buts amazing how often they don’t.
UBS have always owned approx the same number of shares as equity swaps. They have been increasing their positions in both in approximately equal measures since the beginning of their shareholdings.
If you look at the total at the bottom it may be slightly easier to work it out when tracking historically. But effectively it’s what I said last time: Shares have gone from 314,432,909 to 315,230,734 and equity swaps have gone from 326,743,726 to 335,230,734. And overall the position has gone from 641,176,635 to 650,461,468.
Lord only knows why they have entered 333,669,074 shares in the situation previous category – but it’s not correct. They should have entered 641,176,635 in that box. For the record they should also have entered that it was an event changing the breakdown of voting rights rather than an acquisition or disposal. It’s no wonder the financial industry is in meltdown.
Trumpton – not necessarily a missing Holdings RNS; more likely a missing EU Short Selling Public notification, and subsequently a closing of that short position. I will let you know of any meaningful updates, but it has taken 6 months of talks with the FCA to get to where I am now (which is no further than when I started other than confirming that the FCA don’t have a Scooby doo). It’s not rocket science however so I am sure that the media (London rags in particular) will have a field day with this.
LeMans – you have it the wrong way round. UBS have bought Equity swaps which means they long. They have not provided the shares to do it with, and therefore it is not strange as they are not shorting the share that they also own. You don’t release an RNS for a short equity swap as you would have no indirect voting rights. Its simple – UBS own direct shares and UBS also own indirect shares (the equity swaps). Just think of the equity swap as UBS borrowing the stock for a set period of time. However whoever they are borrowing from are unlikely to own the stock (although that is possible if it were say Hendersons or C Potts or broken into many counterparties of smaller holdings) which means they are in breach.
This effectively means that they have diluted the market by 6.5% and along with spreadex (cant remember the exact number now) who have also diluted the mkt by another 8-9% or so from memory. This is in breach. If these companies followed EU law they would have to buy this 15% or so to hedge their position. You can imagine what a 1m GBP buy would do to the share price with the minimal amounts of shares that are ever on offer for this stock. BOOM.
I have always maintained that UBS are shorting EDL. Whilst you are correct that the party on the other side of the equity swap is the true shorter, UBS are still providing the shares to do it with. It seems a strange stance to be long on EDL while also effectively allowing a short position with your own holding.
Happy to be corrected on any of this because I do not claim to know what I am talking about ;)
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NETbuilder and Interactive Data.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk!
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.